I appeared on the "Week in Review" program, hosted by Bob Jimenez, a week or two ago out here in Los Angeles to discuss fallout from the 2006 Election Meltdown. The show was taped on November 17th and aired the following week. Thanks to Alan Breslauer, the video is now finally available below here at The BRAD BLOG.

Discussion included problems in California from Riverside to Monterey, Sequoia's yellow button, Diebold's sleepovers in San Diego, lack of paper ballots and voters turned away without being allowed to vote by the thousands around the country, Sarasota's mess, the failures of Bruce McPherson, Michael Haas, and other lousy elections officials, the need for reform, the mainstream corporate media's dismal failure, and more.

On a side note, the show airs on the Time-Warner Channel out here since they swallowed up Adelphia over the summer. Though the public-affairs program has been running for nearly 20 years in LA, it looks like T-W is about to stop airing it all together. A great pity, that. Yet another casualty of unchecked mass media consolidation.

It was quite funny, one of them was taking his best shots at me before we went on the air in the green room. But I have a feeling I may have cleaned his clock so well before we went on, that he decided he better not even try to go there once the cameras were rolling

Brad- This was a knock-em dead performance. We have so far to go in educating the general public about the dangers of e-voting and I'm concerned that with the election behind us, MSM will REALLY start ignoring the issue. You are an excellent spokesperson for the movement - very knowledgeable - and very persuasive.

Ive been watching you since before you started nailing voter fraud. You Fucking Go!
I feel like you are the only one holding the candle in the dark. Nice interview, this video has to get on youtube.com and get linked by all the liberal blogs!
Where are the god damn hippie ass baby boomers?
Peace love truth democracy!?!?!?
what was all that shit they were going on about back then? They should be leading the way, but no,
It is the next generation that must pick up the pieces.
Let me know if i can help you in anyway. I know computers and system administration and such.
Take care, watch your back and the truth will set us free, keep at it!

WOW, That was a great interview Brad. You got all the salient points out there while being very coherent. I went to a sick client's house today and had a very interesting talk with her daughter. She's in her sixties, She mentioned impeachment, lying, stolen votes, and her lack of faith in the OFFICIAL story of 9-11. It was a wonderful visit because I can see every day that people are becoming much more plugged in to the realities of our lives. People like you are giving me hope in humanity again... Thank You for all YOU DO AND HAVE DONE FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

James Carville decided to address the issue while taking questions at a fairly large gathering broadcast on C-SPAN. A very serious woman stood up and asked him why the Democrats, including him, were "not taking a stance" on the secret coding and black box aspects of machines. Sensing her passion, he decided he better not duck the issue.

He said the Democrats haven't been in charge of anything, (she asked why you weren't taking a stance James), up until now, but he revealed his knowledge of the problem and showed real anger about how all the problems benefit the Republicans.

He also knew about the Princton study and said the professor could "play Mozart" with the machines. He also said that nobody argues that Al Gore didn't win and "nobody argues that Christine Jennings didn't get the votes on election day". He said he thinks people would support an investigation into it.

As she continued to glare at him, he said he "wouldn't trust Diebold as far as he could throw it"

This might be a good sign that the issue simply cannot be ducked anymore. Now we have to make sure they don't stretch the remedy past the next presidential election. I have every reason to believe that's exactly what they're planning!

My only comment is that I think that you could have been more forceful about the "paper & pencil" solution. You did say it, but the other people tended to laugh it off a bit. As you know I live in Canada and we do all of our elections the old fashioned way, other than a couple of unsuccessful trial runs with e-voting.

I think that you should push the fact, in these interviews, that all countries other than the U.S. still vote with paper & pencil. It seems that people in the U.S. are so in love with "technology" that they are afraid to look at the simple solution. Montana is the one bright light in all this.

Not only that, but the exit polls are used to cross check the veracity of the published results.

Great Job Brad! Get this on YouTube for more exposure. You are excellent in a panel situation and should try to get in more of them....IF we can ever get anyone to pay attention! Altho the worm does seem to be turning...

By the way, when I telll people that the code is "propietary" and can't be looked at, they can't believe me. That's about all you need to tell anyone who knows a tiny bit about computers. I do a little skit for my unbelieving friends and family: I vote, then call Diebold and ask who won...and they tell me. I ask for a recount and they wait a couple of days and call back to say, "yep,we were right." There is no proof!!! We're trusting a private company to select our leaders? You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that's just not right. "Trust but verify!"

I watched the entire interview - I must say that if it was any Republican saying what Brad said - Brad would call them a liar.

Either Brad Friedman is a poor investigative reporter (lots of missed facts) or he has and agenda.

Lets start with some facts:

1) Brad: No one in CA sees the trade secrets of the machines and how they count. Fact: CA Secretary of State reviews the source code and keeps in a escrow account for further review. CA also has it reviewed by independent analysts from UC Berkley. Do we want those who want to steal elections to get the source code to do so on a google search?

2) Brad: Princeton Report showed you can hack Diebold machine like those used in San Diego in 30 seconds. Fact: CA does not use the Diebold machine in the Princeton Report in ANY county. And CA has set security and use procedures to detect and prevent any attack like that demonstrated.

3) Brad: "Yellow Button" on the back of Sequoia voting machines can allow you to vote over and over again. Fact: CA Secretary of State and several counties have successfully used these machines in multiple elections with no issues. They have been aware of the button, it is physically secured and an alarm goes off if tampered with - which allows the election staff to catch the retail fraud.

These are just a few flaws in this journalists attempt to report on something very important - election integrity - there are many more missing facts by this balanced journalist.

Some other key facts:

1) CA has paper trail as official ballot - basically a paper ballot (I think it is up to 26 states with a paper trail requirement). Author of law - Secretary of State Bruce McPherson.
2) CA has a 1% manuel recount of all types of ballots to look for problems he mentions.
3) Without touchscreens there is little to no technology that allows the disabled voter to vote independently as federal law requires.
4) CA Counties must provide voters with a paper ballot if they request one.
5) CA has no record of any votes being stolen as he claims.

OH - DID YOU SEE THAT SECRETARY OF STATE ELECT BOWEN WILL NOT DE_CERTIFY THE DIEBOLD VOTING MACHINES THAT BRAD CLAIMS ARE "TERRIBLE"?

Did you know that the Diebold TSx can be loaded with the software used in the Princeton report with no rejection whatsoever?

This is what I've heard.

I also heard you could block the alarm on the Sequoia with an earphone plug. Or if you were a dishonest election worker, you could do it after the polls were closed by going through the log book and entering in votes for everybody who wasn't checked off.

It's a month or so later, but I only just now saw JR's comment, and I hate to let any disinfo go unanswered.

She said:

Lets start with some facts:

1) Brad: No one in CA sees the trade secrets of the machines and how they count. Fact: CA Secretary of State reviews the source code and keeps in a escrow account for further review. CA also has it reviewed by independent analysts from UC Berkley. Do we want those who want to steal elections to get the source code to do so on a google search?

If you didn't use unsecure source code, you wouldn't have a problem. Open, publicly disclosed source code can be far more secure, btw, then secret software. Ask the boys at Microsoft how they feel about Linux.

As to the SoS reviewing the source code. That's utter nonsense. Or disinfo. Your choice. They are allowed to review some source code, but only on certain occassions, as when they discovered that every Diebold voting machine violated both Federal and CA standards. In that case, the Berkley boyz were allowed to review only the source code in question. They were not allowed to do so on an actual machine. Just the code.

Nobody in California reviews the source code (at least under McPherson's reign) for the voting machines used across the entire state. Period.

2) Brad: Princeton Report showed you can hack Diebold machine like those used in San Diego in 30 seconds. Fact: CA does not use the Diebold machine in the Princeton Report in ANY county. And CA has set security and use procedures to detect and prevent any attack like that demonstrated.

The machine in the Princeton Hack was a Diebold AccuVote TS. The ones in use in CA are Diebold AccuVote TSx. The major (but minor) difference being the attached "paper trail" printer.

Diebold, of course, knows the same hack used at Princeton works on the TSx as well. Otherwise, they'd have supplied a machine to Princeton to prove them wrong.

Want to dare me to prove it to you by the way?

The security measures (essentially, plastic tape) is easily worked around. In all number of ways already discussed elsewhere. It's easily defeated on a number of fronts. Including during the illegal "sleepovers" of Diebold voting machines from San Diego to San Joaquin.

3) Brad: "Yellow Button" on the back of Sequoia voting machines can allow you to vote over and over again. Fact: CA Secretary of State and several counties have successfully used these machines in multiple elections with no issues. They have been aware of the button, it is physically secured and an alarm goes off if tampered with - which allows the election staff to catch the retail fraud.

Heheh...No "alarm" goes off. The machine beeps. Similar to when you start up your own PC. Read the article in which I broke the story.

Neither is it "physically secured". As to your "successful elections", just a guess, but you wouldn't happen to be from Riverside County by any chance would ya? I defy you to demonstrate the "success".

As to the fact that it's "retail fraud" using the Yellow Button method, on that I'll happily agree with you. Easy to use such retail fraud to steal an entire local election, btw.

These are just a few flaws in this journalists attempt to report on something very important - election integrity - there are many more missing facts by this balanced journalist.

I never claimed to be "balanced". I claimed only to be fair. Which I am. In spades.

Got more? Oh, looks like ya do...

Some other key facts:

1) CA has paper trail as official ballot - basically a paper ballot (I think it is up to 26 states with a paper trail requirement). Author of law - Secretary of State Bruce McPherson.

Actually, as I recall he originally opposed the legislation. He certainly wasn't "the author".

That said, the "paper trails" is never counted and it's meaningless.

2) CA has a 1% manuel recount of all types of ballots to look for problems he mentions.

Really? Please feel free to post the details of the 1% manual audit from last November Busby/Bilbray election in San Diego.

Let us know how much they were off, and what was done about it (if you're ever able to get the details from the secret audit).

As you likely know, nothing is done about any descrepancies because there is no remedy for them written into Debra Bowen's law.

3) Without touchscreens there is little to no technology that allows the disabled voter to vote independently as federal law requires.

You're a pro, dear. But again, you're wrong.

There is VotePAD, IVS (vote by phone), AutoMark (which is a touch-screen, but not a DRE and that's the real problem here), and others.

Further, none of the DRE's certified in CA actually meet the requirement for a "voter verified paper audit trail" since none of them comply with disability needs to read back the paper ballot via audio to be "verified". But perhaps you knew that.

4) CA Counties must provide voters with a paper ballot if they request one.

Yup. Not that all Registrar of Voters are willing to do so. Nor will they all count them as normal ballots as required by law (ask Mikel Haas in San Diego).

5) CA has no record of any votes being stolen as he claims.

When did I claim that exactly?

Aside from that, lack of evidence for something is not evidence that it did not occur. As you well know. Or at least as you would admit if you had an ounce of honesty within ya.

OH - DID YOU SEE THAT SECRETARY OF STATE ELECT BOWEN WILL NOT DE_CERTIFY THE DIEBOLD VOTING MACHINES THAT BRAD CLAIMS ARE "TERRIBLE"?

Nope. I didn't. Feel free to share that information with us. As of now, Bowen is on record as stating she will review the certification for ALL voting systems irresponsibly (and often illegally) certified by Bruce McPherson.

Perhaps you know that by now however.

Have a great day! And thanks for playing Stump the Investigative Journalist! Better luck next time!